Comparison of hepatitis C virus treatment between incarcerated and community patients.

UNLABELLED: The prevalence of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among incarcerated individuals in the United States is estimated to be between 12% and 31%. HCV treatment during incarceration is an attractive option because of improved access to health care and directly observed therapy. We compared incarcerated and nonincarcerated HCV-infected patients evaluated for treatment at a single academic center between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2007. During this period, 521 nonincarcerated and 388 incarcerated patients were evaluated for HCV treatment. Three hundred and nineteen (61.2%) nonincarcerated patients and 234 (60.3%) incarcerated patients underwent treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Incarcerated patients were more likely to be male, African-American race, and have a history of alcohol or intravenous drug use. Treated incarcerated patients were less likely to have genotype 1 virus and were less likely to have undergone previous treatment. There was a similar prevalence of coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in both groups. A sustained viral response (SVR) was achieved in 97 (42.9%) incarcerated patients, compared to 115 (38.0%) nonincarcerated patients (P = 0.304). Both groups had a similar proportion of patients that completed a full treatment course. Stepwise logistic regression was conducted, and the final model included full treatment course, non-genotype 1 virus, younger age at treatment start, and negative HIV status. Incarceration status was not a significant predictor when added to this model (P = 0.075). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of HCV-infected patients managed in an academic medical center ambulatory clinic, incarcerated patients were as likely to be treated for HCV and as likely to achieve an SVR as nonincarcerated patients.

The causes and outcome of acute pancreatitis associated with serum lipase >10,000 u/l.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate the use of serum lipase levels >10,000 U/L as a tool for predicting the etiology of acute pancreatitis (AP) and to further address the relationship between lipase elevation and disease severity. METHODS: We compared patients with AP and serum lipase >10,000 U/L (HL) with patients with AP and lower serum lipase levels (855-10,000 U/L). The etiology and severity of AP were recorded. Differences between groups were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 114 patients in the HL group, the common etiologies of AP were biliary (68%), iatrogenic trauma (14%), and idiopathic (10%). Only one patient had alcoholic AP. Conversely, the common etiologies of AP in the 146-patient comparison group (lipase 855-10,000 U/L) were broader: biliary (34%), idiopathic (23%), alcohol (14%), and iatrogenic trauma (10%). Biliary AP was twice as common in the HL group (P < 0.0001) whereas alcoholic AP was significantly less common (P < 0.0001). The positive predictive value (PPV) for biliary AP of lipase >10,000 U/L was 80% whereas the negative predictive (NPV) for alcoholic AP was 99%. No difference between groups was observed in the severity markers including ICU admission, length of hospital stay, complications, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In AP a serum lipase of >10,000 U/L at presentation is a useful marker and portends a biliary etiology while virtually excluding alcoholic AP. Therefore, if ultrasonography is negative for stones in this population, these data suggest workup with MRCP or EUS is warranted to evaluate for microlithiasis or sludge given the high likelihood of occult stone disease in these individuals.

Screening colonoscopy and detection of neoplasia in asymptomatic, average-risk, solid organ transplant recipients: case-control study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the detection of colonic neoplasia in an average-risk population of SOT recipients. Studies regarding colonic neoplasia in solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients have demonstrated mixed results due to the inclusion of above average-risk patients. We performed a case-control study of 102 average-risk SOT recipients who underwent screening colonoscopy, compared with an average-risk, age and sex-matched control group (n=287). Cancer rates were compared with an age-matched cohort from the National Cancer Institute's Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. There was no difference in number of patients with adenomas (P=1.00). There was no difference in polyps per patient (P=0.31). Although the number of advanced lesions (excluding adenocarcinoma) between groups did not differ (P=0.25), there were two adenocarcinomas identified in the SOT group and none in the control group (P=0.068). Detection of colorectal cancer was an unexpected finding in the SOT cohort and was more likely when compared to age-matched cancer incidence generated by the SEER database. These results suggest no increased adenoma detection in SOT recipients, but with more cases of colorectal cancer than anticipated. Given previous, larger, transplant database studies demonstrating increased colorectal cancer rates, more frequent screening may be justified.

Utility of colonoscopy in the evaluation of diarrhea in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea is common in solid organ transplant recipients. Colonoscopy with random biopsies is performed frequently in the diagnostic evaluation of the posttransplant population with diarrhea. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of colonoscopy with random biopsy in determining a specific diagnosis and changing management in solid organ transplant recipients with diarrhea. METHODS: From October 1996 to June 2008, 88 patients were identified who had undergone solid organ transplantation and subsequently underwent colonoscopy for an indication of "diarrhea." These patient's electronic medical records were reviewed to determine patient demographics, laboratory results, findings on colonoscopy and histopathology, and any subsequent diagnoses made and management changes in relation to the diarrhea. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (mean age 54 years, 65% male) underwent colonoscopy a mean of 69 months after transplantation. Abnormal colonoscopic findings were seen in 16 (18.2%) patients. Histopathology was abnormal in 17/80 (21.3%). However, only eight (9.1%) had findings on colonoscopy or pathologic condition that led to specific diagnosis being made. In addition, only nine (10.2%) patients had a change in medical management as a direct result of colonoscopy with biopsy. CONCLUSION: Although colonoscopic or histopathologic abnormalities are common in the solid organ transplant recipient with diarrhea, the findings rarely lead to a specific diagnosis or management change. Colonoscopy with biopsy should be performed only after noninvasive testing for infectious diarrhea and a thorough review and adjustment of medications. In many patients, a trial of antidiarrheal medication is warranted before colonoscopy.